||Crypto-communists and communists (mind)
|| 4 sor
||Re: The $64M USA question (Re: The German question $64K (mind)
|| 17 sor
||Re: Inpartiality of the media (mind)
|| 8 sor
||Inpartiality of the media (mind)
|| 10 sor
||Re: VOA about Soros (mind)
|| 13 sor
||impartiality of the media (mind)
|| 33 sor
||Kossuth's admirers overlooked? (was Re: The $64M USA qu (mind)
|| 68 sor
||Re: Crypto-communists and communists (mind)
|| 13 sor
||Re: Horthy era "color" (mind)
|| 16 sor
||Re: impartiality of the media (mind)
|| 13 sor
||Re: Hungary was Icelands's history (mind)
|| 60 sor
||Suggested reading (mind)
|| 8 sor
||Impartiality of the press (mind)
|| 36 sor
|| 37 sor
||geneology 2 (mind)
|| 7 sor
||Jewish statistics (mind)
|| 59 sor
||MKP membership, 1945-48 (mind)
|| 15 sor
||Re: Impartiality of the spectators (mind)
|| 7 sor
||Re: The German question $64K (mind)
|| 5 sor
||Impartiality of the spectators (Was: Re: Impartiality o (mind)
|| 20 sor
||Hilbig, Wolfgang (mind)
|| 21 sor
||Re: liberalism, what is it? (mind)
|| 22 sor
||New E-mail provider in Budapest (mind)
|| 6 sor
||Re: The German question $64M (mind)
|| 89 sor
||Hungarians at the Gates (mind)
|| 54 sor
||Re: impartiality of the media (mind)
|| 90 sor
||Re: VOA about Soros (mind)
|| 6 sor
|+ - ||Crypto-communists and communists (mind)
Zoli Fekete called my attention last night to an odd sentence in my piece on
Erdei and Dobi being communists, not just crypto-communists. I am aware that
crypto- means hidden, and what I should have said was that I was not aware of
the fact that they held dual party memberships. Eva Balogh
|+ - ||Re: The $64M USA question (Re: The German question $64K (mind)
Zoli Fekete writes:
> Dear Jeliko,
> Obviously, with respect to the USA "jumping in" meant declaring war on
> them, which Bardossy did on Dec 12, 1941 (or about half a year Before
> Midway would I say without disabling my hindsight ;-)). How much chance
> was then for the USA sitting in America?
> -- Zoli
I just wish that Bardossy would have been smart enough to declare war only
on the USA. Who knows Hungary may have won. :-), but it does not need to be
that bad, most countries who lost specifically to the US did pretty good
|+ - ||Re: Inpartiality of the media (mind)
> I cannot distinguish liberals from others in the US (from
> here) in recent past (20/30 years+) they say different things perhaps
> but seem to end up doing the same things as the conservatives.
As someone quipped: we've got two wings here - the conservatives, called
liberals, and the reactionaries, called conservatives ;-(...
-- Zoli (from across the Commune of Cambridge, Massachusetts ;-))
|+ - ||Inpartiality of the media (mind)
I have been thinking about Eva Durant's great faith in socialism,
Marxism-Leninism (Leninism!!!), and the evil nature of so-called bourgeois
democracy and capitalism. (I am using the term purposely because I am sure
this is how Eva Durant must have learned it under Kadar.) I seriously suggest
that Eva Durant read a few books which are critical of Marxism. I think they
would be good as antidotes to the uncritical presentations she had
encountered in the Kadar regime. I am no political scientist, and the last
time I read anything on the subject was in the 1960s. Therefore I can't
suggest anything current, but I am sure there are many new books out on the
subject. Eva Balogh
|+ - ||Re: VOA about Soros (mind)
> Soros will be investing the 50m in a new Hungarian Transformtaion
> Project along the same lines as that set up for Russia. It's purely
> development assistance, probably going towards the support of basic
> science research and the produiction of new humanities textbooks.
This sounds more like philantropy, not investment. Well, not investment
in the sense I understood from the original press report.
But then the term "investment" can mean different things in different
|+ - ||impartiality of the media (mind)
Jeliko wrote about individual responsibility during the Nazi regime and
during the Rakosi era:
>armchair discussions are not a substitute for those responsibilites.
>Several people on the newsgroup are ridiculing that others are not happy
>with an ex-pufajkas as a PM in Hungary, because he was not really doing
>what the rest of the Pufajkas were doing.
Some people have blinkers on when it comes to this subject. I specifically
asked that people who seem to be so touchy about the state of Hungarian media
express one way or the way their opinion on some journalists cheering at the
MSZP election victory. Needless to say that I didn't not get any answers from
those who think that the media cannot do wrong. The few answers received
didn't come from the people I hoped to hear from. The same is true about
Horn's background. Horn was twenty-six years old in 1956; so he was not a
child who didn't know what he was doing. He was an adult. To me, who lived
through the revolutionary events at an extremely exposed spot (corner of
Rakoczi ut and Kiskorut) it is unimaginable that a decent person could be on
the other side. Unless of course he was so brainwashed that he actually
believed that all those on the other side (that is practically the whole
Hungarian nation) were fascist counterrevolutionaries. As for what Horn did
or didn't do--I don't think we actually know. He claims he didn't beat up
people--I guess he was just standing by watching his comrades beating up the
"counterrevolutionaries." As for "flippant" remarks about such matters,
please see an editorial in *168 ora* by Gyo3zo3 Ma1tya1s which begins thus:
"Ha1t, a magyarok Istene is pufajka1s. Hiszen hogy ma1ske1nt ereszthette
volna ra1 ezt a liberbolsi baga1zst Ma1ria orsza1ga1ra, a Ka1rpa1t-medence
kereszte1ny ve1do3ba1stya1ja1ra." [Translation: "The god of Hungarians must
be pufajka1s himself. Otherwise how could he have allowed this
liberal-bolshevik scum into the country of the Virgin Mary and the Christian
bastion of the Carpathian basin." I am not surprised that some people take
offense. Eva Balogh
|+ - ||Kossuth's admirers overlooked? (was Re: The $64M USA qu (mind)
>> Vivat Kossuth! <== closest Ic'n come to joint hero
>Tony where are you? Th Hungarians are claiming a "Slovak" as a national
>hero even in relation to the fourth of July.
Jeliko, Jeliko, wherefrom art thou, Jeliko? Surely, a more deserving
personality would probably have been Pavol Orszag, since he contributed
to the literature of Hungarians and Slovaks alike, whereas Kossuth's
articles in Pesti Hirlap were really boring. Perhaps some contemporary
viewpoints from Norwegian and British admirers of Kossuth ought not be
overlooked? The editor of the Magyar newspaper, "A Hir," seemed inquisitive
to know what had caused the great Norwegian author to pass such a severe
judgment upon the Magyars and the Magyars treatment of the non-Magyar
nations. Bjornson Bjornstjerne replied thus:
"From childhood I loved the Magyar people and admired them; when later
I began to investigate more closely and saw all that injustice which the
Magyars perpetrate upon the nations with whom they dwell in a common state,
I began to abhor Magyar chauvinism. I firmly believe, that outside of the
boundaries of Hungary there is not a single person whose soul is not
against Magyar chauvinism. If you desire to better learn what my opinions
are in regard to this question, read my article in the periodical, "Marz,"
of September, 17, (1907, Munich) or in "Le Courier Europeen," entitled
"Peace and the Friends of Peace."
* * *
R.D. Seton-Watson, the author of "Racial Problems in Hungary," was also
originally a friend and admirer of the Magyars, until an intimate study and
knowledge of them and their institutions caused him to revise his opinion,
and to publish to the world the truth about them in his "Racial Problems in
Hungary." We commend this book to our American fellow citizens who love the
truth, and faithful to the traditions of the founders of this Republic,
believe in true justice, liberty and humanity.
I approached the subject with the conventional views of a British admirer
of Louis Kossuth, and have gradually and reluctantly revised my opinion on
almost every problem of Austrian or Hungarian politics. A writer who
challenges the long-established belief in Hungarian liberty and tolerance,
must be prepared to meet a charge of prejudice and bias. To my mind true
impartiality does not consist in a bare catalogue of facts and a resolve
to avoid all expression of opinion; it lies rather in approaching the subject
with an open mind or with a readiness to correct existing bias, in resolving
never to suppress essential facts which conflict with the writer's own views
and sympathies, and in humbly acknowledging the fact that historic truth is
relative, not absolute. On these lines I have honestly tried to act, and I
must leave the reader to judge as to the success of my experiment. In its
course many an idol has been broken, many a cherished belief discarded.
The present volume does not pretend to treat all of the races of Hungary
in detail. To give a really adequate account of the Roumanians, Croats ..
of Hungary and Croatia, would have involved a further delay of eighteen
months; and the present time seems to me already more than ripe for drawing
the attention of our public to the wrongs of the non-Magyar races in Hungary
and to the sad plight to which Magyar Chauvinism has reduced the Hungarian
state. I have therefore concentrated my attention upon the Slovaks, whose
situation may be regarded as typifying that of all the non-Magyar races in
Hungary, and who stand most in need of help and sympathy.
Of course no Magyar Chauvinist will believe so "calumnious and fanatical"
a writer as myself, when I say that this book has been written entirely
without any feeling of hatred towards Hungary. Perhaps in ten years' time,
when universal suffrage has let in a healthy stream of democracy and the
present orgy of racial intolerance and class legislation has spent itself,
it will be possible for a Magyar to make such an admission. That is, however,
a matter of comparative indifference to me, since I write for the British,
not for the Hungarian public, whose tendency to ascribe all unfavorable
comments on Hungary by foreign writers either to bribery or to "Viennese
spectacles," tempts me to ignore their criticism altogether.
"Racial Problems in Hungary." - Preface, etc., pages VII-VIII; XIX-XX.
|+ - ||Re: Crypto-communists and communists (mind)
Eva Balogh writes:
> Zoli Fekete called my attention last night to an odd sentence in my piece
> Erdei and Dobi being communists, not just crypto-communists. I am aware
> crypto- means hidden, and what I should have said was that I was not
> the fact that they held dual party memberships. Eva Balogh
Neither were most of the Parasztpart members.
|+ - ||Re: Horthy era "color" (mind)
Zoli Fekete writes:
> An interesting story about the Horthy-songs is that according to people
> the know (for us poor conscripts could care less ;-<) they survived in
> the "People's" Army with altered lyrics.
> -- Zoli, the all-colorful Fekete
Yeah, I seem to remember " Az a maniam, tankkal atmenni (Czech) Slovakian."
Unfortunately, the Kadar Brezhnev alliance fullfilled the wish. Of course,
if it is done for a good cause than it is dfferent. :-)
PS: Tony, don't blame me I was not there!
|+ - ||Re: impartiality of the media (mind)
In reply to your message of "Sat, 02 Jul 94 15: 59:16 EDT."
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 94 14:24:04 -0700
> Horn was twenty-six years old in 1956; so he was not a
> child who didn't know what he was doing. He was an adult.
But the fact remains that the electorate have spoken. Until the
next campaign, let's examine his policies and programs, not his
qualification for office. That, IMHO, is how the game is best played.
|+ - ||Re: Hungary was Icelands's history (mind)
Bela Batkay writes:
> Jeliko raised a number of intersting points in his reply to my posting
> about the role of political institutiin limiting the type of conflict
> a society experiences, but I will respond to only three--
> 1. he asks whether the Lapps ever attacked anybody. I'm not sure, but
> Lapps are an intersting case on their own. The people who are now called
> Lapps (Sami) apparently were non-Lapp speakers who migrated into Lappland
> from elsewhere, gave up their own language, and absorbed the language and
> culture of the local people.
Tony Pace got me reading King Alfred's chronicles in the recent past. And
while Alfred added little to Orosius in many places, what he added is
interesting. He discusses Ohthere's voyage west to east from Norway to the
White Sea. I think it is the oldest written record for the area, that is by
an eyewitness. It is worthwhile reading.
> Much the same thing happened, BTW, with the
> Bulgarians, who originally spoke a Finno-Ugric language, but then gave it
> up when they settled in what is now Bulgaria, absorbing (or being ab-
> sorbed by) the local Slavic-language speaking population.
> 2. he asserts that Great Britain was democratic for its home-island citi-
> zens, but not for its colonies. This is much too simple a view. As
> Crusie O'Brien pointed out in an article about Northern Ireland in the
> New York Review of Books some time ago, the question of democractic poli-
> tical processes must be separated from the question of the political
> aries within which those processes are utilized. In this respect, India
> probably about as democractic as England was in the 19th century, but was
> not at liberty (until 1948) to determine the territorial boundaries of
> own political system, the same situation that pertains in Northern
> at the present time.
I disagree that it is solely the political boundary question, in which
India was different from England and compairing it to todays Northern
Ireland is not an acceptable comparisson. There were very limited personal
freedoms in India. The people were exploited both by the local and the
British rulers. Of course, if you mean that basically both England and
India were undemocratic in the XIX century, than we may be closer. However,
even then there was a "slight" difference between the two. If I recall we
started out with the comment, that Macartney was critical of Hungary and
its system, while many of the same things that he critisized or worse,
existed under British control.
> Be'la Ba'tkay
BTW, also from Alfred, Iceland was discovered by Gardar, the Dane in 860,
and it was colonized by Ingolf, the Norwegian in 874. Apparently, in those
days the Danes, rather went to England, or by the time they decided to go
to Iceland the Norwegians were there. Granted, Greenland is bigger, but it
became a real estate agent's fiasco.
|+ - ||Suggested reading (mind)
The history buffs on the net may be interested in the article by
Randolph L. Braham "A TV Documentary on Rescue During the Holocaust: A
Case of History Cleansing in Romania." East European Quarterly, Vol.
XXVIII, Number 2, Summer 1994.
The article details how history is being rewritten to suit political
objectives. Braham, of course, is known for his well researched
work on the holocaust in Hungary.
|+ - ||Impartiality of the press (mind)
Bokor Imi comments:
: >The impartiality of the press, and for that matter, History, is a myth.
: says Eva Durant. I envy your self-confidence in these matters.
: >history teaching
: >and the press in general claims to be neutral in the West, and in fact
: >resents the establishment, the conservative/liberal and anti-change view.
: This is new to me. I would like to see a few examples of this
: conservative/liberal, anti-change and pro-establishment journalism in the
: west. Or history, for that matter. Eva Balogh
Try the British press in the Boer War or the Great War (WWI) for a start.
I don't think that mentioning the Boer War or the Great War is appropriate
here. The press was outright jingoist during the Boer War--in fact, the word
jingoism comes from that time. (The press has changed a lot since then. Today
it is difficult to imagine such jingoism of the press.) Also, one must not
forget that during World War I there was such thing as censorship. In
addition, modern propaganda machine was also set up, at least in the United
States. I think the fellow who headed the office of propaganda was called
George(?) Creel. Imi Bokor didn't mention that there was similar propaganda
offices set up, on both sides, during World War II. I read quite a few books
and articles from that period and reporting was anything but objective,
especially as far as the Soviet Union was concerned. But how can you expect
objectivity during wartime? So, bringing up the Boer War and World War I is
simply doesn't speak to the issue. I find on the whole that the press is not
pro-government, just the opposite, members of the press normally are
anti-establishment. Eva Balogh
|+ - ||geneology (mind)
Some while ago, several people asked me to post information on source of
geneological information for Hungarians. Here, in somewhat abbreviated form,
is what I have:
1. The first place to start in the U.S. is with the Mormon Church (Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). Their Family History Library, Salt Lake
City, Utah, has lists of Family History Centers in various regions of the U.S.
(e.g., Northeastern States). Each of these Centers has voluminous geneological
records on microfilm, CD-ROM, etc., attanged by continent, country, and state
of the U.S., and also has access to *more* voluminous microfilm records from
Salt Lake City. The Centers are free, and staffed by knowledgeable volunteers.
2. A publication called _Heritage Quest_, #8, from which the following is ab-
a. megye (county) archives in Hungary (write me directly with the county you
areinterested in, and I'll post you the specific address).
b. the national archives in Budapest: Magyar Orsza1gos Leve1lta1r, Be1csikapu
Te1r 4, 1014 Budapest 1. Contains an especially valuable complete 1869 census
from Zemple1n Megye.
c. church registers for Catholic, Evangelical, Reformed, Greek Catholic (ask me
for specific addresses). Regrettably, my source does *not* list Jewish
synagogue registers. Magyar Orsza1gos Leve1lta1r has a list of all these
(Egyha1zi Anyako2nyvek Mikrofilm Ma1solatai), including, apparently, the 314
Jewish ones, that can be ordered from the Leve1lta1r for approximately $10.
d. censuses--lots of difficulty with these, but apparently many are preserved
in individual county (megye) archives (see a., above).
e. passenger lists of emigrants to the U.S. during 1845-1934, available on
micro-film from the Mormons.
e. book--the author of the article from which the above is taken, Angus Baxter,
has written a book entitled _European Roots_, which contains a section on
I hope this helps.
|+ - ||geneology 2 (mind)
Let me add one more source to Bela's list of works on Hungarian
genealogy: Handy Guide to Hungarian Genealogical Records, by
Jared H. Suess (Logan, Utah (P.O. Box 368, Logan 84321): Everton
Publishers, 1980. 100 p. Ken
(repeat post by Paul Gelencser - original by KENNETH NYIRADY)
|+ - ||Jewish statistics (mind)
Andras Kornai very rightly points out the following concerning Hungary's
>It is true that people of Jewish origin played a large role in the
>middle class, in industry, and in commerce (though to say they dominated I
>think is an overstatement) but these people were not *Jewish* they were
>*Hungarians*. Some of them (but not too many) had Jewish religion, but most
>them didn't. Some of them (but not too many) might have had Jewish
>self-identification, but most of them identified themselves as Hungarians,
>were in fact highly patriotic Hungarians who would under no circumstances
>put loyality for some Jewish cause above loyality for the country.
Relying again on my *Magyar zsido1 lexikon* I would like to add some
statistics and also some impressions. On the impressionistic side, when I
first received the lexicon I immediately begin browsing through it, reading
articles and biographies here and there. After a while I noticed that there
were asterisks after an awful lot of names. What is this, I asked and went to
the introduction for an answer. It turned out that the asterisks signified
conversion. Impressionistically speaking, the numbers looked very high.
However, if one looks up the heading "A1tte1re1s" [Conversion], it turns out
that the figures were rather low: between 1890 and 1910: 5,046, for example.
Admittedly, after the fall of the Soviet Republic many more Jews converted
(1919: 7,146; 1920: 1,925; 1921: 821; 1922: 499; 1923: 458; 1924: 433;
altogether: 11,288.) Because the book was published in 1927 I have no later
>From all this I gather that conversion was most frequent in the higher strata
of the Jewish population, among those who were illustrious enough to be
included in the *Magyar zsido lexikon.* The other interesting thing is the
very high conversation rate in 1919, right after the fall of the Hungarian
Soviet Republic but before the 1920 law introducing the numerus clausus. That
is, those who converted didn't necessarily convert in order to get into
university but rather because of aftershocks of the Hungarian Soviet
As for mixed marriages I have the following from 1925: 20 percent of all
marriages were mixed. There was only a very slight variation between the
numbers of men and women--Jewish men were slightly more often married
non-Jewish women than vice versa. The religion of the children, according to
agreement between husband and wife, was predominantly Christian. Only 0.5
percent of the couples decided to have the children follow Judaism as their
official religion. Given the above it seems to me that the loss to the Jewish
community wasn't so much through conversion as through mixed marriages.
William McCagg has written at least two books on the Jewish nobility of the
Monarchy. His first was about the Hungarian Jewish families who were ennobled
by the Crown. According to my lexicon there were approximately 280 noble
Jewish families in Hungary. The list of names is fascinating: for example,
Mo1zes Freudiger (o1budai), president of the Orthodox congregation of Pest,
in 1910. Or Vilmos Friedrich (nyitrazsa1mbokre1ti), royal councilor,
physician, privat dozent, in 1913. Very few of these Jewish nobles converted.
For an example, Jo1zsef A1rko2vy (tahito1falui), university professor, in
1905. One I find fascinating is: Fu2lo2p Back (cairo1i), industrialist in
1909. (What I find fascinating is his choice of the equivalent of the German
"von," "cairo1i," [of Cairo.]
I hope that these statistics will support Andras's description of the state
of Hungarian Jewry between the two world wars. Eva Balogh
|+ - ||MKP membership, 1945-48 (mind)
Attila Gabor wrote in connection with Erdei's membership in MKP:
>Most of the posting is rather well know fact (not that it would take away
>from it's significance). However, since you brought up Ferencz Erdei,
>interestingly he had to be persuade not to join the MKP since as the head
>of the pro-communist Peasant Party (The Communist answer to Smallholder
>Party) he was the Minister of Interior (Which at that time could not be
>held by communist, until Imre Nagy took over in 1946). This info is
>confirmed by Zoltan Vas, Kallai and Marosan autobiography and the
>hypothesis written about in Ferencz Nagy's autobiography.
I didn't remember the passage although I read some of these autobiographies
(Vas, Marosan and Nagy). But even if these gentlemen mention it in their
autobiographies, it is still nice to see it confirm in a contemporary
document. Eva Balogh
|+ - ||Re: Impartiality of the spectators (mind)
>For me, Erzsebet Nagy (the daughter of THAT Imre Nagy) being willing to lay a
>wreath on his father's grave with Horn,
That should be HER, i.e., Erzsebet Nagy's father.
|+ - ||Re: The German question $64K (mind)
Admitting my ignorance on this topic, I gather from the conversation that
Bardossy was some Hungarian leader/official who entered Hungary into the
war on the side of Germany? I have never heard this guys name before.
|+ - ||Impartiality of the spectators (Was: Re: Impartiality o (mind)
Eva Balogh wrote:
> Horn was twenty-six years old in 1956; so he was not a
> child who didn't know what he was doing. He was an adult.
How is that old saying:
"anyone not a communist in their twenties have no heart,
anyone still a communist by their forties have no brains".
I thought only the Pope is supposed to be infallible, the rest of us are
imperfect enough not always to get it right the first time around.
For me, Erzsebet Nagy (the daughter of THAT Imre Nagy) being willing to lay a
wreath on his father's grave with Horn, on the anniversary of the revolution,
has a message: contrition on part of the latter and forgivness on part of the
For me, keeping old feuds boiling for eternity has a distinctly Balkans flavour
|+ - ||Hilbig, Wolfgang (mind)
Hilbig, Wolfgang, 1941-
"Ich" : Roman / Wolfgang Hilbig. -- Frankfurt am Main : S. Fischer, c1993.
377 p. ; 21 cm.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NYUG (b-9115 DCF:a NNU) CSUG (c-9115 CSt) CTYA (c-9115 DCF:a CtY)
CUBG (c-9665 DCF:a CU) DCLC (c-9550 DCF:a DLC) IAUG (c-9115 DCF:a IaU)
MNUG (c-9665 DCF:a MnU) NHDG (c-9115 DCF:a NhD) NJPG (c-9115 DCF:a NjP)
NYCG (c-9115 DCF:a NNC) NYCX (c-9115 DCF:a NIC) NYPG (c-9665 DCF:a NN)
PASG (c-9665 DCF:a PSt) RIBG (c-9115 DCF:a RPB) VAUG (c-9665 DCF:a ViU)
New York Univ., Stanford, Yale, UC Berkley, Libr. of Congress,
Un. of Iowa, U. of Minnesota, Dartmouth, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell,
New York Public, Penn State, Brown, Univ. of Virginia.
|+ - ||Re: liberalism, what is it? (mind)
> The liberals think that they have an obligation to talk you into giving it
> Unfortunately, after it is given away, they all think that it was generated
> by exploitation only,
> and when they do not generate any wealth by exploitation alone, they are all
> surprised and want to give it back, so they can start all over again.
What do you mean by "generating wealth by exploitation alone"? I was talking
about taking away by means of taxation, and that clearly applies to
wage-earners who have exploited nobody (except perhaps themselves). Seems
to me you are again attributing socialist views to liberals, and then
happily proceed to attack the straw-man.
> I never met a liberal, who called himself that, and was one.
How did the liberals you met call themselves? Or could it be you never met a
genuine liberal, only people who called themselves liberal?
|+ - ||New E-mail provider in Budapest (mind)
If anyone is interested in getting info re a new organisation providing
dial-up E mail access in Budapest Hungary, send me an E mail
|+ - ||Re: The German question $64M (mind)
> IMHO the Duel is interesting in the aspect of how much of the British were
> considering an arrangement with Hitler. I think Churchill's personality,
> had a lot to do with the turning of Britain into harder resisatnce to Hitler.
In that case you must agree that England's selecting Churchill for PM
was a clear signal to other countries.
> There was basically no popular support in France to fight, regardless of
> the (IMHO questionable) technical superiority of the Frnch military. The
> people ( and most of the establishment) just plain did not want to fight.
I can believe that. Nobody actually doubted Germany could take on France and
win. Free French nothwithstanding this is basically what happened. The
question was more like: can Germany take on the rest of Europe, the SU,
*and* the US, and win?
> But [the US entry to WWII] did not happen until Dec 1941. Even within Rosevel
> circle, there was no clear support for assisting the Brits in the early
> days. Please do not be mislead by the reverse "engineering" that was
> created AFTER the war, to show unanymous support for the cause.
I'm sure some of that reverse engineering is quite true, and that you are
correct that there wasn't unanimous support early on. I can even believe
that left to their own devices, the US population would have stayed out.
However, they were not left to their own devices, they had a responsible
government they elected in order to (among other things) have someone
responsible for the common defense and the nation's interests. You can't go
around the fundamental issue that it *was* against the US national interest
to let Germany win, so that any leadership worth its name would have sooner
or later get the nation support the war -- that's what "leadership" means,
There was no placating the US or cutting a deal with the US for the nazis.
US decisionmakers were keenly aware that letting the nazis rule Europe in
conjunction of Japan ruling the Pacific would have meant that government of
the people, by the people, for the people would soon perish from from the
earth. It took awhile to rally the people, but there was no chance of that
not happening even without Pearl Harbor -- the global position of the US
was threatened, after all.
> I think we are not discussing the same right wing. The right wing was anti
> Horthy and pseudo socialist. It was many times oppressed by the Horthy
> regime, Szalasi was jailed and the parties were de jure disbanded by the
> government at times. IMHO it was this "keeping on leash" of the right wing,
> that assured the regime's support by those who could be considered
> "liberal". The mainstay was reactionary, but it was not per se the right
I think what you are talking about is conventionally called "ultraright".
You are free to introduce your own terminology, but I doubt the proud
right-wingers on this list would identify with Sza1lasi and such.
> > appearances matter). He represents nobody in particular, except perhaps the
> > absolute losers of WWII (the committed nazi/nyilas types who often served
> > time or were otherwise persecuted, still nursing their grief, and looking
> > for revanche) that's why he's getting so few votes.
> Now you sound like Joe with his "flocking" statement, i. e. those who are
> persecuted, served time, etc have a justification (percieved or real) to be
> violent opposers of the regime.
Yes I would say those were persecuted do have a justification (perceived or
real) to be opposers of the regime. Whether violence is called for is
another matter, but I don't see voting for Csurka as a violent act. On the
contrary, as long as they use the ballot box as their main tool for
expressing their opposition stance and they don't advocate violence one
should tolerate them. Whether Csurka represents the "absolute losers" or
tries to, and whether the "absolute losers" have gotten wiser and no longer
care for this kind of stuff are two issues worth discussing. I nevered said
the "absolute losers" were flocking to Csurka -- all I said was that Csurka
*perhaps* represents them. BTW I do think that he tries, I'm not sure he
> I would still be interested in the "social starta" of his support. Are they
> workers, agriculturals, middle class ?
More city than countryside, suggesting his that agrarian support is not that
deep. I must admit I completely failed in my prediction that
Agra1rszo2vetse1g will be a big winner -- seems like those with a
conservative bent voted for Kisgazdapa1rt, those without (and this doesn't
mean they are committed liberals or socialists) voted MSZP. Also, Csurka
did well in the same Buda districts where MDF won, "well" relative to his
> Yeah, everybody has access to blue jeans now. It is no longer distinctive
> to have one.
Wow! Levi Strauss Hungary started to operate back in the seventies,
remember? The last time "access" to blue jeans meant something in the way of
status was over twenty years ago. You seem to be mistaking Hungary for the
|+ - ||Hungarians at the Gates (mind)
Jeliko mentioned the American reaction to the Hungarian declaration of
war in 1941 (issued unconstitutionally by Prime Minister Bardossy, without
authorization by the two houses of Parliament.) If anyone knows of some
pointers to primary sources dealing with this topic, I would like to see
them. In the meantime, here is a passage from an essay by M. Sukosd:
"Problems of Biography", from the journal VALOSAG, vol. 23 No. 1.
The translation is mine.
As a Hungarian citizen and roving intellectual I often had to speak
about Hungary in places near and far. The audience varied from the
relatively well-informed to people who were barely able to tell apart
Bukarest and Budapest. I usually started my talk with a well-known
anecdote. How much of it is fact and how much is a factoid I cannot
tell. It is impossible to find out who the original source is. What
follows is the most complete version I know.
The scene is the State Department in Washington. Present are the
head of the Eastern Europe Section along with Harry S. Truman, future
President of the U.S.
"Well, a nice morning, isn't it? Any news?"
"Sir, Hungary declared war on us this morning."
"Let me see. Hungary... What kind of country is this Hungary?"
"It is a small kingdom in Eastern Europe."
"A kingdom? And who is their king?"
"They haven't had a king in 20 years."
"Then who is running the country?"
"Admiral Miklos Horthy is the Regent."
"Admiral? So which sea is this Hungary next to?"
"They haven't had a seacoast in 20 years."
"And what does Hungary want from us?"
"From us? Nothing. They have territorial demands against Romania."
"Let me see. Romania? What kind of country is Romania?"
"Another small kingdom in Eastern Europe."
"Also run by an admiral?"
"No, sir. Romania is run by King Michael."
"Is Romania an ally of ours?"
"No, sir. Romania is an ally of Hungary..."
And so on. By the time I got to the end of the story, you could see
some of the audience slowly getting the point about Hungary. After this,
I was ready to push on to the ontological essence of Hungarianness. I used
the short story by Istvan Orkeny called The Last Cherry Pit. As you all
know, the story starts out like this:
"We were down to the last four Hungarians. (That is, the last four
still left at home, in Hungary. There were still a great many Hungarians
scattered to the four winds in other countries.) The four Hungarians
were camped out under a cherry tree. Of the four, one was hard of hearing,
and two had to report weekly to their probation officer. Only one of the
four had had a name. He knew his last name was Sipos. The others have
forgotten their names along with everything else. When you are down to
four people, it is not that important for everyone to have a name..."
And so on.
|+ - ||Re: impartiality of the media (mind)
>I specifically asked that people who seem to be so touchy about the
>state of Hungarian media express one way or the way their opinion on
>some journalists cheering at the MSZP election victory. Needless to
>say that I didn't not get any answers from those who think that the
>media cannot do wrong.
That means either those bogeymen are not around, or did not recognize
the words put in their mouth (not counting the possibility that the
category you defined is empty) ;-(. In any case, since you specifically
avoided clarifying whom "hoped to hear from" but are apparently anxious
to get some answers different than heard so far, I can jump in as
someone who believes that your blanket statements about the press _in
toto_ lack much basis.
To begin with, I do not think "cheering" at a press conference is
professional behavior. Of course, it would've been more interesting if
you actually told us what happened - the broad term used could mean
courteous applause like Reagan would've gotten, or heartfelt
congratulation due for Clinton (according to Joe and you anyways), or
wild hopping with possibly slipping into singing the Internationale if
they threw away their veil too transparent for some ;-<... Now provided
that some were closer to that latter end on the scale of possibilities,
several questions arise. How do you gauge the significance of those
cheering (whom you said did not include even all of those present at
the conference, so it must have been a small fraction of all
journalists) for judging the whole media? How does it follow that a
show of sympathy at the meeting would mean bias in reporting in
general - and how different would it be if they hid it? Or are we to
expect having no journalist whatsoever to feel somewhat for a major
political force in the country? And last not least, how come we learnt
about this whole thing thru that supposedly untolerably biased press?!
>an editorial in *168 ora* by Gyo3zo3 Ma1tya1s which begins thus:
>"Ha1t, a magyarok Istene is pufajka1s. Hiszen hogy ma1ske1nt
>ereszthette volna ra1 ezt a liberbolsi baga1zst Ma1ria orsza1ga1ra,
>a Ka1rpa1t-medence kereszte1ny ve1do3ba1stya1ja1ra." [Translation:
>"The god of Hungarians must be pufajka1s himself. Otherwise how
>could he have allowed this liberal-bolshevik scum into the country
>of the Virgin Mary and the Christian bastion of the Carpathian
>basin." I am not surprised that some people take offense.
Well, this image is ugly indeed, but why blame the mirror? After the
election the MUK-press was overflowing with the kind of stuff satirised
above. Just look at two little samples on the theme of the nation
committing suicide via not voting for the MDF:
" 1994. majus 8-an a remenyek elenyesztek: a magyar nep ma aktiv
nemzedeke kijelentette, hogy nem kivan magyar maradni [...]
[... a Habsburg-haz] modernizacionk kozpontjaira olyan idegeneket
szemelt ki, akiknek eletlenyege a villamgyors alkalmazkodas es mimikri,
majd hagyta, hogy beleessunk a verembe, amelyet o asott nekunk.
1994. majus 8-an vegul is alairta a magyar nep, miszerint teljesen
mindegy neki, hogy mint ilyen, letezik-e tovabb es meddig.
1994. majus 8-an [...] ervenytelenitettek a Szent Istvan-i muvet, es
most mar az ellen sem lesz kifogasuk, ha az uj tulajdonukban dinamikusan
berendezkedo urai a semmit sem jelento Szent Koronat elonyosen eladjak
vagy elarverezik egy regisegkereskedonek. Vagy eppen elarvereztetik.
[...] a magyar meggyulolte onmagaban a magyart." From the May 18 Pest
Megyei Hirlap - since I am too lazy to translate just now, enough to
say that this (and the whole article with its wider context) is pretty
much equivalent to the passage above. Or thus spake the outgoing
cultural commissar Gyula Fekete (no relation ;-(), May 19 Magyar Forum:
"[...] a kozhiruen nemzetgyilkolo politikai eronek a ketsegtelen
diadala vert pofon. ~Honfitarsaim~ millional tobb szavazataval.
Magyarnak szulettem, nem tehetek rola. Szegyellhetem magam.
[...] A hulyeseg, ha a tobbseg is vallja, annyival is nagyobb." Ie.:
`I'm slapped in the face by the obvious triumph of the well-reputedly
nation-murdering political force. With more than a million vote of my
~fellow countrymen~. I was born Hungarian, I could not help it. I can
be ashamed of myself. [...] The crassness, if shared by the majority,
is all the bigger.`
I am not surprised that some people take offense.
Now on to this other thread that don't want to die:
>Horn was twenty-six years old in 1956; so he was not a
>child who didn't know what he was doing. He was an adult.
So what exactly was he doing - other than joining an organization of
whose later acts he may not have foreseen?
>To me, who lived through the revolutionary events at an extremely
>exposed spot (corner of Rakoczi ut and Kiskorut) it is unimaginable
>that a decent person could be on the other side.
Apparently he got a different kind of exposure - but if could he'd
probably trade your corner for having his brother killed ;-<...
>As for what Horn did or didn't do--I don't think we actually know.
>He claims he didn't beat up people--I guess he was just standing by
>watching his comrades beating up the "counterrevolutionaries."
Actually we know we don't. But why not fill in the gaps with your
guesses, after all we can't build history on mere facts ;-(.
|+ - ||Re: VOA about Soros (mind)
Soros will be investing the 50m in a new Hungarian Transformtaion
Project along the same lines as that set up for Russia. It's purely
development assistance, probably going towards the support of basic
science research and the produiction of new humanities textbooks.
- Colin Woodard (Budapest)